Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Raveena Singh Adhikari And Others on 18 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8331
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 518 of 2023
18th September, 2025
Iffco Tokio Gic Ltd. .........Appellant
Versus
Raveena Singh Adhikari and Others .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pramod Kumar Bailwal, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company.
Mr. Siddhhant Manral, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to
4/claimants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
The present appeal, under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by
the appellant/Insurance Company assailing the
judgment and award dated 24.08.2023 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st
Additional District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No.
03 of 2021, whereby compensation of ₹65,53,000/-
along with simple interest @ 6% per annum has
been awarded in favour of the
claimants/respondents against the appellant
2. The case of the claimants, as pleaded in
the claim petition, is that on 22.12.2020, deceased
Neeraj Singh Adhikari was returning from
Kaladhungi to his home at Bajunia Haldu on
motorcycle no. UK04Z-0982, along with his friend
Santosh Garjola. At about 5:00 p.m., near the
Forest Department gate on Baur Pul, Kaladhungi-
2025:UHC:8331
Bajunia Haldu Road, a tipper vehicle no. UK04CA-
6876, being driven rashly and negligently from the
wrong side, collided with the motorcycle. The
deceased sustained grievous injuries, was initially
admitted at Sai Hospital, Haldwani, and thereafter
referred to Shri Rammurti Memorial Hospital,
Bareilly, where he succumbed to injuries on
23.12.2020. An FIR of the incident was lodged at
P.S. Kaladhungi on 25.12.2020. The claimants
pleaded that the deceased was engaged in running
a milk dairy at Haldwani, owning 7-8 jersey cows
and supplying about 60 litres of milk daily, thereby
earning around ₹35,000/- per month. On this
basis, compensation of ₹76,32,000/- was claimed.
3. The appellant/Insurance Company filed its
written statement denying liability, contending that
the vehicle was not at fault, that requisite details of
the accident were not furnished by the insured, and
that the claimants failed to establish the alleged
income of the deceased. Respondent-owner of the
tipper and owner of the motorcycle also filed their
written statements, placing on record the RC,
permit, fitness certificate, and driving licence of the
driver.
4. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the accident occurred on 22.12.2020
due to rash and negligent driving of tipper no.
UK04CA-6876, resulting in the death of Neeraj
Singh Adhikari?
2025:UHC:8331
(ii) Whether the accident was caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the motorcycle UK04X-
0982?
(iii) Whether the driver of the tipper had a valid
and effective driving licence and whether the
vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy at
the time of accident?
(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation, and if so, to what amount and from
whom?
5. Learned Tribunal On Issue No.1, relying
on the testimony of PW-2 (eyewitness Santosh
Garjola), the Tribunal held that the accident was
caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of
the tipper. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal found that
there was no contributory negligence on the part of
the motorcycle driver. On Issue No.3, the Tribunal
held that the Insurance Company failed to produce
any contrary evidence to rebut the claimants' case.
As such, it was presumed that the tipper was duly
insured and the driver possessed a valid licence. On
Issue No.4, learned Tribunal held that on the date
of accident, the tipper vehicle in question was
insured with Insurance Company i.e. appellant,
therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is
solely responsible for paying compensation to the
claimants. Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at ₹30,000/-, applied a
future prospects addition of 40%, deducted 1/4th
towards personal expenses, and applied the
2025:UHC:8331
multiplier of 17 for the age of 27 years. Dependency
was thus calculated at ₹64,26,000/-. Adding
₹15,000/- for loss of estate, ₹15,000/- for funeral
expenses, and ₹44,000/- for consortium, total
compensation was determined at ₹65,53,000/- with
6% simple interest.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that learned Tribunal erred in assessing the
income at ₹30,000/- p.m. without any cogent
documentary proof; that, the dairy business income
was not substantiated by authentic records or
licences; that, deduction of only 1/4th for personal
expenses was erroneous as the father of the
deceased was an earning member; that, the
Tribunal ignored that the dairy business allegedly
continued after the death of the deceased.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants would submit that the deceased was
indeed supplying 70-80 litres of milk daily @ ₹35
per litre; that, receipts of supply were produced and
not disputed by the Insurance Company before the
Tribunal; that, the dairy business closed after the
death of the deceased as there was no one left to
manage it; that, the question of regarding the
receipt of milk dairy was not disputed before the
Tribunal and is being raised for the first time in
appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
2025:UHC:8331
9. It is undisputed that the deceased died as
a result of injuries sustained in the accident in
question. PW-2, who was an eyewitness,
categorically deposed that the accident occurred
solely due to rash and negligent driving of the
tipper. His testimony remained unshaken in cross-
examination. Thus, the finding of negligence
recorded by the Tribunal is affirmed. As regards the
validity of insurance and driving licence, the
Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence
to the contrary. Once the claimants produced the
insurance policy and relevant documents, the onus
shifted to the insurer, which it failed to discharge.
The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect also
stands confirmed.
10. On the question of income, it is noted that
receipts of milk supply and oral testimony of PW-1
were placed before the Tribunal. The Insurance
Company did not object to such evidence or cross-
examine PW-1 on the authenticity of receipts before
learned Tribunal. For the first time, this objection
has been raised in the present appeal. It is a settled
principle of law that new grounds not raised before
the Tribunal cannot be urged at the appellate stage
unless they go to the root of jurisdiction. Therefore,
this contention of the appellant is rejected.
11. Perusal of the impugned award would
reveal that learned Tribunal has adopted the correct
method of assessment by considering future
prospects (as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
2025:UHC:8331
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680), making
deduction towards personal expenses, and applying
the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 27
years. The compensation awarded cannot be said to
be excessive or arbitrary.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court
finds no error in the findings and award passed by
the learned Tribunal warranting interference under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
13. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. The statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- made
by the appellant/Insurance Company before this
Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal
concerned.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 18.09.2025
Mamta
MA Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24
4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a
6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9
RANI
cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d
d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef
0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2025.09.22 17:09:13
+05'30'
